REGINA, Saskatchewan, December 13, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission's decision to impose a "lifetime" ban on a local Christian's freedom to publicly criticise homosexuality, was upheld this week in its entirety by Saskatchewan Court of Queens Bench.

Bill Whatcott, an evangelical Christian and a licensed practical nurse who lives in Saskatchewan, is a campaigner against the homosexual political movement that is sweeping the Canadian legal system. In 2006, the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission (SHRC) ordered Whatcott to pay $17,500 Cn. to four complainants who complained that their "feelings" and "self-respect" were "injured" by Whatcott's pamphlets denouncing the "gay lifestyle" as immoral and dangerous.

Whatcott responded to the decision, "This fine is for telling the truth [that] homosexual sodomites can change their behaviour and be set free from their sin and depravity through the forgiveness of sins and shed blood of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ."

He added, "Shame on the Saskatchewan Court of Queens Bench for pandering to homosexual activism and ignoring the truth."

In its 2005-2006 Annual Report, the Commission noted that Whatcott was "ordered to discontinue distributing any materials that promote hatred against people because of their sexual orientation."

The tribunal held that "preventing the distribution of such materials was a reasonable limit on Whatcott's right to freedom of religion and expression as guaranteed by section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms".

Whatcott appealed the decision to the Court of Queen's Bench and received the news on Tuesday that the court would not overturn the HRC's ruling.

Whatcott himself says he was fined for his pamphlets that used "verbatim" a text from a classified personal advertisement in a local homosexual publication that ran, "Man seeking boys.... age not so relevant".

Canadians concerned about what they see as the erosion of basic democratic freedoms are calling for a stop to the extra-judicial powers of the Human Rights Commissions in which the usual rules for due process of law do not apply.

In connection to a similar Human Rights Commission case currently levelled by the Canadian Islamic Congress against the popular conservative political author Mark Steyn, Ottawa Citizen columnist David Warren wrote this week that freedom of speech is "the most fundamental right," and that the Human Rights Tribunals represent a significant threat to democratic freedoms.

Freedom of speech, he wrote, is "the queen bee in the hive, as it were. Every other freedom depends on this freedom. Take it away, and we no longer have a free country".

"Like so much in civil society, we put up with it because the alternative is worse, and we'd rather cope with free speech, than with the free intimidation that results from its suppression."

Warren voiced the concerns of many in Canada who believe the Human Rights Commissions' powers and zeal for the far left ideological position makes them an ideal vehicle for the suppression of basic democratic freedoms.

Warren blasted the Human Rights Tribunals, calling them "kangaroo courts" and "star chambers" with "quasi-legal powers that should be offensive to the citizens of any free country... in which the defendant's right to due process is withdrawn."

"They reach judgements on the basis of no fixed law. Moreover, 'the process is the punishment' in these star chambers -- for simply by agreeing to hear a case, they tie up the defendant in bureaucracy and paperwork, and bleed him for the cost of lawyers, while the person who brings the complaint, however frivolous, stands to lose nothing."

Conservatives in Canada are supporting a petition, addressed to Prime Minister Stephen Harper, to abolish or at least curtail the powers of the Human Rights Commissions.

The tribunal held that "preventing the distribution of such materials was a reasonable limit on Whatcott's right to freedom of religion and expression as guaranteed by section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms".

Was it Andrew Jackson that said “The judge can make any ruling he wants but, then he has to come down off the bench and enforce the ruling”? If you dont like a ruling a judge makes you have the same option!!
We Americans are very gracious when it comes to observing a ruling made by a judge, it dont always have to be like that. Insert Human Rights Commission where needed in lieu of judge

Not just the Left. I have a feeling there would even be some Freepers of a more secularist bent who would be absolutely fine with this same sort of thing being imposed in the USA.

You're probably right. If a judicial ruling came down here banning all speech criticizing homosexuality, theyd reject doing anything to overturn it. Theyd argue that we should be proposing tax cuts and free trade rather than being bogged down on divisive social issues. Wed be compared to the Taliban for worrying about what homosexuals do in the bedroom.

"In 2006, the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission (SHRC) ordered Whatcott to pay $17,500 Cn. to four complainants who complained that their "feelings" and "self-respect" were "injured" by Whatcott's pamphlets denouncing the "gay lifestyle" as immoral and dangerous."

The Saskatchewan Human rights Commission should, in accordance with this ruling, ban the Koran from being imported, printed, preached from, or distributed in any way, plus all hatefull, injurous derogatory sermons from being preached in mosks and order the Islamic community to pay every person- Jew, Christian, Bhuddist, Hindu-(all non- muslims) for hurt feelings.

This Christian activist should seek the Koran ban based on this ruling, and see if they don't end up tossing it out.

This of course would never happen, despite popular belief that every Canadian is entitled to his day in court, the Supreme court of Canada can and often does refuse to hear cases it doesn't want deal with. Justice be damned. The liberals from Trudeau on have gone a long way towards establishing a liberal dictatorship in Canada. A few more terms in office, and it will be completed.

Government is an amoral mechanism. It takes its direction from the values and character of the people who are operating it.

No matter how perfectly designed its processes, no matter how clearly enumerated the citizen’s rights, if the mechanism is in the hands of persons who are not committed to upholding and protecting the principle of liberty for ALL, the principle that is the foundation of freedom, then the protector of the people has become their oppressor.

For the most part, the totalitarian and fascist regimes have wonderful constitutions - on paper. It was/is the implementation that turn their liberal democratic ideals into slavery.

That is why the fundamental duty of voters in a functioning democracy is to evaluate which candidate has the essential qualities of morality and good judgment to humbly receive, properly exercise, and relinquish government power without abusing it in the process.

The idea of a "lifetime" ban on speech because it is offensive to some is an affront to the basic principle of liberty and it is a terrible indictment of the judgment of every government official involved. That such a penalty was even announced, much less upheld by a judicial court is a disgrace. Unless reversed and prevented, Canada's citizens are well on their way to becoming subjects.

42
posted on 12/13/2007 5:47:57 PM PST
by Captain Rhino
( If we have the WILL to do it, there is nothing built in China that we cannot do without.)

I think the only hope to save the good part of Canada is for the west (Manitoba westward) to separate and rid themselves of all that Liberal corruption that permeates every level of government, appointed senate and justice system. Otherwise it’s doomed to be ruled forever from Ottawa and Q-bec. (Q-bec’s “Block du Q-bec Quaz” separtist party isn’t even a national party, yet it’s given status/ seats in the federal government. How screwed up is that?)

"I havent heard about a mass migration of Americans headed to Canada"

What do you mean? Every time Republicans win the WH the Looney left threatens to leave for Canada forever. Plus all those lefties that join the army for benefits then get scared when called to actually serve.

If we win again that just might be the final straw, and we'll be rid of democrats forever. Then they can join up will all the Vietnam era draft dodgers and finish screwing up Canada.

I doubt that. There are plenty of FReepers, including myself, who have no objection to homosexuality, but I’d be very surprised if you find any besides just-signed-up-today trolls who would support this sort of speech suppression. Frankly, I think this sort of thing hurts, rather than helps the pro-gay rights movement. This guy isn’t forcing anyone to do anything they don’t want to do, or forcing anyone to refrain from doing anything they do want to do. He’s a private citizen expressing his views, which include well-founded outrage at publications running ads that read “Man seeking boys.... age not so relevant” in explicit sex-seeking classified sections. And he’s apparently expressing them mainly via pamphlets, which are easy for anyone to ignore. It’s not like he’s a Fred Phelps type, disrupting people’s daily activities by spewing anger and condemnation at high volume in close proximity to his targets.

Again, Romans 1:25-27 tells us that same-sex sexual relationships are a consequence of idolatry. In other words, such relationships are a consequence of disobeying the 1ST COMMANDMENT, a major aspect of the GREATEST COMMANDMENT, to love God with all our being.

Homosexuals need to keep in mind, however, that the good news of the gospel is not about how God despises same-sex sexual relationships. In fact, 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 tells us that certain members of that church had formerly been slaves to such relationships but had been cleansed in Jesus’ name. So these former homosexuals had evidently repented and accepted God’s grace to straighten their lives out.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.